1987
DOI: 10.1108/eb039163
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do Megamergers Make Sense?

Abstract: Megamergers often do not benefit shareholders, managers, or the public. One does not need to have acquisitions followed by divestiture or dismemberment, followed by more acquisitions. Unless corporate managers learn from a decade of experience, one can expect a continuing parade of profitless megamergers.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Traditional centralized structures based upon functional departments (Uform systems) proved inappropriate for managing this diversity increasing the impetus toward decentralized M-form structures (Chandler, 1962;Williamson, 1975). The trend toward diversification is even more noticeable recently with megamergers becoming prevalent (Davidson, 1987), further reinforcing the use of M-form structures. Williamson (1975) argued that the M-form provides a number of beneficial features for managing diversity.…”
Section: M-form Controls Short-term Efficiency and Risk Avoidancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditional centralized structures based upon functional departments (Uform systems) proved inappropriate for managing this diversity increasing the impetus toward decentralized M-form structures (Chandler, 1962;Williamson, 1975). The trend toward diversification is even more noticeable recently with megamergers becoming prevalent (Davidson, 1987), further reinforcing the use of M-form structures. Williamson (1975) argued that the M-form provides a number of beneficial features for managing diversity.…”
Section: M-form Controls Short-term Efficiency and Risk Avoidancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…With such large deal value, mega-deals play a significant role in firms' operation, generally receive widespread publicity and are under more investor scrutiny and corporate governance (Alexandridis et al, 2017). Specifically, mega-deals are usually undertaken as a strategic move by those largest and most successful firms who expect to accumulate more revenues beyond the established patterns (Davidson, 1987). For example, from the deals of IBM-Lotus, ExxonMobil-XTO, and more recently Facebook-WhatsApp, acquirers have used target firms as a springboard into a new market and to obtain the augmentation of business ranges.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Horizontal integration strategies also played a fundamental role in the form of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers among competitors, and as a way to conduct a growth strategy leading to achieving larger economies of scale and enhancing the transfer of resources and competencies. Davidson (1987) argues that mergers between direct competitors are more likely to create efficiencies than mergers between unrelated businesses, both because there is a greater potential for eliminating duplicate facilities and because the management of the acquiring firm is more likely to understand the business of the target. Typically, this is been the situation with a number of global shipping companies taking over the regional ones, as well as global port terminal operators who acquired a number of both ocean and river terminals.…”
Section: -Leadership and Strategy Theory To Meet Stakeholder Needsmentioning
confidence: 99%